CASE DIGEST

IN THE MATTER TO DECLARE IN CONTEMPT OF

COURT HON. SIMEON DATUMANONG
G.R. No. 150274 | Ynares-Santiago, J.| August 4, 2006

Petitioners: Jimmie F. Tel-Equen, District Respondents: Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong of

Engineer of Mountain Province, DPWH CAR the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH)

Facts:
- On March 28, 1994, the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the
Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Tel-Equen (petitioner), guilty of dishonesty,
falsification of public documents, misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service and ordered their dismissal from the service with accessory penalties pursuant to
Section 23 of Rule XIV, Book V of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987. This was a result of the complaint filed by the
Ombudsman Task Force on Public Works and Highways

- Several motions were filed and denied. Three petitions were filed with the Court but were
referred to Court of Appeals following Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The CA on March 2,
2000, affirmed the decision of the Ombudsman with modification.

- The petitioner herein filed an appeal with CA which was pending when Secretary
Datumanong issued an assailed Memorandum Order stating the decision and that the same is
immediately executory.

- Thus, petitioner, Jimmie F. Tel-Equen, District Engineer of Mountain Province filed a

petition to cite Sec. Datumanong in contempt of court for issuing a memorandum order
dismissing him from service.
Issues:
Whether or not Secretary Datumanong be cited in contempt of court for the assailed Memorandum
Order

Ruling/Held:

The petition to cite former Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong of the Department of Public Works and
Highways in contempt of court for issuing Memorandum Order dated October 5, 2001, is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The power to declare a person in contempt of court and in dealing with him accordingly is an
inherent power lodged in courts of justice. The court also finds that the issuance of the Memorandum
Order by Secretary Datumanong was not a contumacious conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.

The court concluded that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the
penalty is suspension or removal, and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as
being under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he
did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal